Robinson v. Goodall Landscaping, Inc., 012921 MEWC, 18-0026

• Docket Nº: Decision 18-0026
• Case Date: January 29, 2021
• Court: Maine

MICHAEL ROBINSON (Appellant) v. GOODALL LANDSCAPING, INC. (Appellee) and MAINE EMPLOYERS' MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (Appellee) Decision No. 18-0026 No. A.D. 18-0026 Maine Workers Compensation Decisions State of Maine Workers’ Compensation Board January 29, 2021           Argued: April 11, 2019.           Attorney for Appellant: Benjamin DeTroy, Esq., LEARY & DeTROY.           Attorney for Appellee: Matthew W. Marett, Esq., MEMIC.           PANEL MEMBERS: Administrative Law Judges Stovall, Hirtle, and Pelletier.           Stovall, Administrative Law Judge.          [¶1] Michael Robinson appeals from a decision of a Workers’ Compensation Board administrative law judge (Knopf, ALJ) denying his Petition for Specific Loss Benefits Under § 212(3)(M) (Pamph. 2020). Mr. Robinson contends the ALJ erred when determining that his claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm the decision.          I. BACKGROUND          [¶2] While working for Goodall Landscaping, Mr. Robinson’s right eye was injured when a chain disengaged from a plow and forcefully struck him in the face. The board issued previous decrees in this case on May 16, 2012, and August 19, 2016. The August 19, 2016, decree was issued in response to Mr. Robinson’s Petitions for Award of Specific Loss Benefits and to Determine the Extent of Permanent Impairment. Pursuant to 39-A M.R.S.A. § 212(3)(M), an injured employee can be awarded specific loss benefits (162 weeks of total benefits) for the loss of one eye if the employee establishes the loss of at least 80% of vision in that eye.          [¶3] The ALJ noted in the August 19, 2016, decree that:

Many of Mr. Robinson’s providers have indicated that Mr. Robinson is functionally blind in his right eye. In fact, there does not appear to be disagreement on this point. None of the doctors that Mr. Robinson has seen since his 2011 injury, however, has assigned a percentage value to his loss of vision or assessed permanent impairment.

         The ALJ denied the request for specific loss benefits because Mr. Robinson had failed to provide medical evidence establishing...